Not sure if meta SO is the place for this kind of thing but this is the 2nd time this has happend to me.

I was at this question and had voted it up, changing it from a 0 to a 1. After editing the title I went to favorite the question and accidentally clicked the "vote down" button, changing it from a 1 to a 0. Since that was an accident, I clicked "vote up" to undo what I had done. After clicking the "vote up" button, it came up with that annoying Vote too old to be changed, unless this question is edited message.

Why I think this is a bug

Now when I click up, the vote total jumps up to 2, highlights the up arrow but then immediately pops up with the vote too old message and changes the vote total to 0 and highlights the down arrow. If I click the down arrow, as if I wanted to "undo" my down vote, it changes the vote total from 0 to 1, un-highlights the down arrow and pops up with the vote too old message. It immediately re-highlights the down arrow and keeps the vote total at 0

I'm not complaining about the "vote too old" stuff, I'm fine with leaving my vote at up, but its as if it locks my vote at -1 instead of +1 as it should. If it was working correctly, it would have errored and left my vote as +1.

Summary of steps to reproduce

Vote up

Do something

Vote down (it errors as it should, saying its too old to change)

Refresh page, vote is now locked as down

It mistakenly allowed one change to my vote and promptly locked it at that

Update:
The question I linked to, I was able to edit it (retagged) and then change my vote back to an up, bringing it from a 0 to a 2. However, I still believe this is a bug as it does not lock you into your initial vote.

If this is by design, maybe we can get a better more descriptive error message or maybe a prompt that asks us if we want to change our vote.

Search for other questions in [vote-too-old] to see previous discussions; all attempts to get the behaviour to be changed (or even the message) have been declined.
–
EtherDec 4 '09 at 17:01

3

@Æther: Yah I saw that after I asked the question, seems there has been a significant amount of complaints on this issue. So much for changing things based on community feedback :-/
–
AllenDec 6 '09 at 18:37

3 Answers
3

I agree that this should be changed. It should always be possible to fix a misclick like that. The window doesn't have to be long, but "one change after an edit" should be something like "thirty second window after edit".

So the edit allowed me to change my vote 1x and since I was outside the INITIAL vote timer, I was unable to instantly switch it back? Seems like the changed vote should start a new timer, that way I would be able to correct my mistake immediately rather than being instantly locked into the first change I made. That is no longer a "vote is too old" style functionality. That is a "your vote is so old, you're only allowed 1 change per edit" style functionality
–
AllenDec 4 '09 at 2:19

4

There's only the first timer on voting. After that, each edit allows one vote action only.
–
randomDec 4 '09 at 2:25

I do not agree that an 'unvote' allows the vote timer to remain active.
–
IAbstractNov 14 '10 at 20:57

I believe there needs to be some kind of compromise or middle ground. It is imperative that we can upvote when it is due.

Isn't there a way to track upvotes and downvotes a little better than simply starting a timer? Shouldn't the timer be stopped or disabled if, within a few seconds, I take back a vote? I understand, and fully support, the need to disuade gaming the system.

Take the following as an example: I upvoted an answer and then removed the vote (within a very short time frame, less than a minute as best I can recall) because I hadn't fully tested my implementation based on the answer. After testing the answer and seeing that it worked, I can't up-vote the answer.

Initially, I wanted to post my own question; however, there are several questions already posted and I did not want to post a duplicate. I also understand the status-bydesign tag, but the way it works now still feels like a bug.

It's by design too, as apparently folks found a way to abuse that.
–
ArjanNov 14 '10 at 20:56

1

-1, this isn't what answers are for; just go ahead and ask your question and explain your situation. (In your specific case, I would just not cast any votes until after finishing testing the answer out.)
–
Pops♦Nov 14 '10 at 22:23

@Popular: I didn't want to duplicate a question. My answer is also in support of finding some compromise on the vote timer and I used my situation as an example. I'll edit to reflect my intention rather than sounding like I'm asking a question.
–
IAbstractNov 15 '10 at 2:03